Do you agree with the proposed approach to Policy S5?
Local Plan Q42a)
| Responder id | Responder name | Content name | Question | Answer |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reg18_57 | janathome | 19) The St James' & Langstone Campus Strategic Area Policy S5 is inconsistent with the draft Strategic Development policy (para 1.3) where it proposes major development proposals being located in accessible areas. The principle of a “Green City” with lower carbon emissions and vehicular congestion and pollution levels which could protect and enhance biodiversity; open space; and green infrastructure will be compromised in Milton by including both of the St James' and Langstone Campus sites as a Strategic Development Area. The inclusion of both sites in Policy S5 is also at odds with the NAQO and para 1.1.11. Indeed the Plan's evidence papers of February 2019 show Milton already suffers with six congestion hotspots:- Milton Rd/St Mary's Rd; Milton Rd/Velder Avenue; Milton Rd/Locksway Rd; Milton Rd/Goldsmith Avenue; Goldsmith Avenue/Priory Crescent; and A2030/Moorings Way. This congestion exists now in advance of the former Kingston Prison being occupied. If there is not the road space to accommodate existing traffic, where is the additional traffic supposed to queue and how is it supposed to avoid polluting our residential streets? New petrol and diesel cars are not going to be banned until 2030 which means they will still be in common use until the expiry of this Plan. It would better to redraft Policy S5 to exclude Langstone Campus as a “Strategic Site”. It could be, as your draft Policy alludes to, an opportunity area for a new school where school-children could be free of toxic vehicle fumes and utilise the open-spaces and Sports-fields and access it from the south east of Portsea Island safely by foot or by bicycle. The Neighbourhood Plan Habitats Assessment recommends the avoidance of the Campus site for a school in order to protect the Core Brent Geese Grazing Area P23b. The issue with proposing a housing use at the Campus/Sports-fields is that it enhances land value rendering the education use as non-viable. Generally however, that use would be more compliant with the Conservation objectives of Langstone Harbour. There are clear Planning Obligations agreed with the RSPB, Natural England and the University following the approval for the 1996 student accommodation blocks, that the grassland on both the Campus (eastern fields abutting the Harbour) and the Furze Lane Sports-Facilities (western fields) be carefully managed in perpetuity for the conservation of Brent Geese habitat. The Section 106 agreement established a clear grassland management regime for both areas specifying weekly cutting by cylinder mowing to 25mm from mid March to mid April; 20mm from April to the end of September and 25mm in October. It further requires “approved” Spring/Summer grass fertiliser applications followed by an “approved” Autumn fertiliser to both. It demanded a “selective” herbicide be used to the Western playing fields but not to the eastern ones since they were required to be taken out of use for sports activity as a Condition of the Grant. Finally, the Obligation specified the grass seeds mixes to redress any damaged areas. Strategic development of the Langstone Campus site is not at all conducive with this agreed level of grassland management and is inconsistent with the aims of Coastal Policy S10. | ||
| Reg18_39 | jen.samuelson | As set out above, the allocation of St James’ Hospital as a strategic site is supported. Paragraph 7.5.6 of the supporting text to draft policy S5 sets out that the hospital site and its immediate setting (as set out in Appendix 1) is suitable for a range of uses including, amongst others, residential development for c. 209 dwellings. This capacity assessment is supported and aligns with the application pending determination under reference 20/00204/FUL which has had significant engagement with the community, Historic England, PCC Officers and Design Review Panel. Paragraph 7.5.7 of the supporting text states that pedestrian access be maintained and enhanced to the open spaces and to the chapel. With regard to the open spaces retained within any proposals on site, the accessibility of these spaces for walking, cycling and enjoyment by the wider community is supported and forms part of the current proposals under application 20/00204/FUL. With regard to public access to the chapel, throughout the evolution of the proposals under reference 20/00204/FUL no community group has come forward to use the chapel. Historic England has required that an active use is secured through the planning application to ensure its retention and maintenance in perpetuity. Therefore, at application stage if there is no viable offer put forward by a group or body for the long term use of the chapel for the community, the requirement of Historic England will need to be addressed and alternative uses secured. With regard to the wording of Policy S5 itself, it is not necessary or appropriate for a policy within a Local Plan to include a requirement to “take account of the emerging Milton Neighbourhood Plan”. The effect of including the above clause within Policy S5 is to give undue weight to emerging Neighbourhood Plan policy which has not been through examination or referendum and may not become made. The Neighbourhood Plan will gain weight of its own accord as it progresses through the relevant stages of consultation and examination, in accordance with NPPF 2021 paragraph 48. On being made, it will form a part of the Development Plan alongside any adopted Local Plan at that time. On adoption, as per paragraph 30 of the NPPF 2021, the policies contained within the Neighbourhood Plan would take precedence over the Local Plan where they are not in conflict, unless and until they are superseded by any Local Plan. In this context, it is inappropriate for a Local Plan to seek to give additional weight to un-made policies through a Local Plan policy. Therefore, the policy wording to “take account of the emerging Milton Neighbourhood Plan” is unnecessary, inappropriate and must be removed from the draft Local Plan in order for the Plan to be consistent with national policy with regard to weight given to emerging policies (paragraph 48) and to adhere to the legislative framework of Local and Neighbourhood Planning that ensures the independent examination and referendum of emerging policies before they are given full weight. Under the policy subheading “St James’ Hospital and Grounds (including HCA land)”, the proposal for approximately 316 dwellings is supported. In order to allow flexibility and ensure deliverability of the policy, it is recommended that the wording is amended to state “a range of uses including medical facilities, community facilities and approximately 316 dwellings, together with any other uses that may be appropriate in this location” . Finally, with regard to the third bullet under the subheading “St James’ Hospital and Grounds (including HCA land)”, as set out previously in paragraphs 2.21 – 2.23, the areas for open space which are important to the setting and historic understanding of the listed building has been discussed in detail with PCC Planning Officers, PCC Technical Officers and Historic England throughout the preparation of application 20/00204/FUL. It does not appear that the advice and recommendations from Historic England under the above application has been incorporated into the draft policy wording which is critical in order for the draft policy to support the sustainable development of the site. In the interests of achieving sustainable development, delivering much needed homes and preserving the historic setting of the listed building, it is important that the draft policy allows full regard to be given to advice received from Historic England and other consultees during the application process. Therefore, the policy wording should not identify the specific areas of open space to be retained and with the exception of the cricket club, the specific areas of open space should be removed from the policy wording. | ||
| Reg18_42 | angelalbarnes | I wish to object to the inclusion of LANGSTONE CAMPUS FROM 'Strategic Development Policy 55' for the following reason. It must be remembered, there are clear Planning Obligations agreed with the RSPB, Natural England and the University following the approval for the 1996 student accommodation blocks, that the grassland on both the Campus (eastern fields abutting the Harbour) and the Furze Lane Sports-Facilities (western fields) be carefully managed in perpetuity for the conservation of Brent Geese habitat. The Section 106 agreement established a clear grassland management regime for both areas specifying weekly cutting by cylinder mowing to 25mm from mid March to mid April; 20mm from April to the end of September and 25mm in October. It further requires “approved” Spring/Summer grass fertiliser applications followed by an “approved” Autumn fertiliser to both. It demanded a “selective” herbicide be used to the Western playing fields but not to the eastern ones since they were required to be taken out of use for sports activity as a Condition of the Grant. Finally, the Obligation specified the grass seeds mixes to redress any damaged areas. The Brent Geese have not changed their needs nor feeding habits over the past 24 years. The Section 106 should remain in force and be respected. Strategic development of the Langstone Campus site is not at all conducive with this agreement. | ||
| 445 | St James' & Langstone Campus (Q42) | Question 42a: Do you agree with the proposed approach to Policy S5? | i. Yes | |
| 448 | St James' & Langstone Campus (Q42) | Question 42a: Do you agree with the proposed approach to Policy S5? | i. Yes | |
| 451 | St James' & Langstone Campus (Q42) | Question 42a: Do you agree with the proposed approach to Policy S5? | i. Yes | |
| 500 | St James' & Langstone Campus (Q42) | Question 42a: Do you agree with the proposed approach to Policy S5? | i. Yes | |
| 536 | St James' & Langstone Campus (Q42) | Question 42a: Do you agree with the proposed approach to Policy S5? | i. Yes | |
| 543 | byronjones | St James' & Langstone Campus (Q42) | Question 42a: Do you agree with the proposed approach to Policy S5? | i. Yes |
| 575 | St James' & Langstone Campus (Q42) | Question 42a: Do you agree with the proposed approach to Policy S5? | i. Yes |
58 rows found
Page 1 of 6